If your electricity bills are getting you down, then perhaps it’s time you started living off grid? And, thanks to Sharp, you’ll still be able to watch TV while cuddling up to Mother Nature.
Sharp_TV_solar_04
Sharp's 52in solar powered LCD TV
Photo courtesy AVing
The electronics giant has shown off what it claims to be “ …

Sunlight?

A little more in the way of facts would be nice: where does the 22kW/h figure come from? Is that based on 24hours of sunlight per day? ( a common trick with these sorts of things.)

If there wasn't enough sunlight at the show to keep it going, does that mean the same for my home? Do I need to leave it outside all day - I'm not worried about it getting pinched if it is that crap, but it would end up covered in bird poo...

Once again...

Where are the components from?? Did they pull them out of someones arse... not to mention the energy used in manufacture. If not then its NOT a zero emissions telly... its a low energy usage one at best.

220 KWH should read 2.2 KWH?

Units

I believe a typical house consumes a few hundred kWh per month. So presumably the number on the poster is to do with maximum annual production/consumption.

BTW even in Scotland (the inhabited bits) the amount of solar energy that hits a house is something like 5 times the amount used inside it. The real issue is converting it into useful energy and storing it.

useless...

i assume im not the only one to close the curtains when watching movies and playing games? the amount of light needed to light the thing would mean your lounge would have to be so bright you probably cant see the screen anyway!

What's the point?

Given the rather vast infrastructure that exists for the transfer of electrical energy from A to B, and the very high efficiency with which it is achieved, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to bundle a product that generates electricity with one that consumes it.

I don't know about 100% green, but it's certainly 100% gimmick and the fact that they needed to use a spot light simply holds them up to ridicule. So tell me again, what message are Sharp trying to communicate to the waiting world?

Not wishing to state the obvious...

Whilst the sarcastic naysayers were quite predictable, in case anyone was actually serious, [power from a] solar panel isn't on demand. i.e., it doesn't need to be sunny when you want to use it... it charges up when it is sunny and is available when it isn't.

So Many Twatsperts...

Listen, cretins. Sharp make a) LCD tellys (and very nice ones, too) they also make b) PV solar panels. Now, a 52" LCD telly would likely suck in the region of 150W (at mid brightness) so the 220Kilowatt HOURS figure should give you a clue that we're talking about power consumption OVER TIME (and quite a long time), even if you don't understand basic units.

Yes, it's quite possible to drive an LCD TV from a modestly sized PV panel - my 26" Sharp LCD only draws around 30W in typical evening lighting. And guess what? Sharp know more about it than you do.

@Matt Thornton - Stating the obvious

A solar panel by itself doesn't store ANYTHING. It converts sunlight to electricity. Storage requires a rechargeable battery of some kind. The article doesn't mention any kind of battery.

The 220kWh rating is strange, very strange. As others mention, the total power striking 1 sqaure meter of the Earth's surface is somewhere around 1kW so there's no way the cell alone could produce 220kW. If the cell could collect energy, store it, and deliver it with one hundred percent efficiency, it would need 220hours to reach full charge.

220kWH is also a LOT of energy. This (http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/hec.htm) says a small family uses 5,480 kWh per year. So 220kWh would power a home for a family of four for 2 weeks.

That seems unreasonable from a little panel on the floor in front of the Telly.

Mine's the one with the zero point energy panel on the back powering my flying antigravity underpants.

@Frank Bough - Twatspert

I'll grant you that you could probably power an LCD from a reasonably sized solar cell in full daylight. You could probably even do so indoors.

The wonky thing is why in the heck Sharp finds it necessary to throw in a non-sensical rating that is of no use to anyone. If you want to impress me, tell me the solar panel can run the TV indoors under normal lighting. If it won't do that, then tell me it'll run the Telly outside on a cloudy day.

No body here doubts that the combo will work, we just wonder what in 'ell Sharp is trying to express with the numbers.

@Craig

"I thought loads of power was lost between the station and peoples homes."

Some, yes, but hardly "loads". Otherwise it would be more economic to generate power in smaller (less efficient) stations that were closer to the point of consumption. Half a century of industry practice world-wide would indicate that this isn't the case.

For the record

Dear fellow numpties

First of all, El Reg just ran a story based on a bunch of pictures, apparently. And apparently they didn't even bother to ask a Japanese speaking person to read WTF is written on those signs. They could only understand the 220 kWh part besides the few English bits here and there (me too).

So, even ignoring that, why be so stupid with the comments? Or have you forgot to put the "joke icons"? You make yourself look like idiots, really... It's a DEMO thing, FFS. How interesting/marketing gimmickish would it be if it said "Solar powered TV. The panel is outside, trust us"? And then, who said the final product would look like that one? Only a retard would believe someone nowadays would think of building a TV with indoor solar panel, on the floor, in front of said TV. While you're at it, why don't you just complain that it also comes with an ugly sign full of stuff written in Japanese right in front of the solar panel, as well as a bunch of other Japanese stuff on the wall behind it? Gee...

Power consumption

Uh...

Even in the 80s, you could get LCD TV-sets which only took a few watts. Those sets only took about 2 watts total, which makes 48 watthours. Of course it's trivial to power an LCD screen with solar powers. Unless of course you have a badly designed active one with useless features like colour.

OK pedants

Oh FFS... fine, I should have been more explicit. Normal implementation of solar panel technology incorporates the a) solar panel and b) something to store the electric in. Like I said - I didn't want to state the bleeding obvious, whereas you poor saps seem to need it spelled out in every last detail. If you actually thought that Sharp would consider building a TV that required it to be sunny, then it's time you stepped away from the 'puter and went outside for a while.

@Matt Thornton - Twatspert

See the size of it? See the number of batteries? Doesn't exactly fit under the Telly or in the cupboard now does it? Now imagine it 22 times bigger to approximate the 220kWh figure mentioned by Sharp. Hmmm. Might need a bigger flat to keep it all in.

That's what's got those of us with a clue wondering just what the blue peeping HELL Sharp is trying to express with 220kWh, cause it sure as heck isn't that capacity of the solar panel or an hypothetical battery attached to it.

Mine's the one with a 220kWh battery in the (BIG) left pocket powering the antigrav unit in the right pocket that make the battery light enough to carry.